Treat others with basic decency. No personal attacks, shill accusations, hate-speech, flaming, baiting, trolling, witch-hunting, or unsubstantiated accusations. Threats of violence will result in a ban. More Info.

Do not post users' personal information.

Users who violate this rule will be banned on sight. Witch-hunting and giving out private personal details of other people can result in unexpected and potentially serious consequences for the individual targeted. More Info.

Vote based on quality, not opinion.

Political discussion requires varied opinions. Well written and interesting content can be worthwhile, even if you disagree with it. Downvote only if you think a comment/post does not contribute to the thread it is posted in or if it is off-topic in /r/politics. More Info.

Do not manipulate comments and posts via group voting.

Manipulating comments and posts via group voting is against reddit TOS. More Info.

Your headline must be comprised only of the exact copied and pasted headline of the article. More Info.

Submissions must be an original source.

An article must contain significant analysis and original content--not just a few links of text among chunks of copy and pasted material. Content is considered rehosted when a publication takes the majority of their content from another website and reposts it in order to get the traffic and collect ad revenue. More Info.

Articles must be written in English

An article must be primarily written in English for us to be able to moderate it and enforce our rules in a fair and unbiased manner. More Info.

Spam is bad!

If 33% or more of your submissions are from a single website, you will be banned as a spammer. More Info.

The ALL CAPS and 'Breaking' rule is applied even when the actual title of the article is in all caps or contains the word 'Breaking'. This rule may be applied to other single word declarative and/or sensational expressions, such as 'EXCLUSIVE:' or 'HOT:'. More Info.

President Obama does things from time to time that make me go "WTF", but I quit making snap judgements about him. What I discovered is that he is a way better politician than I can imagine. Some of the time when he makes some concession that you absolutely hate or does something that seems inimical to the progressive agenda, if you wait 6 months and check back, it turns out that he did it in such a way as to screw the opposition in some subtle way that was not apparent at the time.

I think that he is a very intelligent man who is too sneaky by half for the Republicans to even understand, and who's heart is in the right place.

I can't think of any current politicians who I would definitely rather be president than him. Not really. Don't get me wrong, he's not perfect, and I like Bernie Sanders a lot, etc., etc. I'd like to see a debate between them. But when I think about how clearly preferable Obama is to nearly everyone else, I realize your question is a false dichotomy: like or prefer? I think when you realize you prefer someone to everyone else, you realize you'd be wrong not to genuinely like them. You've got too high expectations, maybe. What you really want is to be in charge yourself. And that can be positive if it encourages you to political action, but very negative if you just become an unsatisfiable wannabe-tyrant. And that may sound very dramatic or whatever, but it's really the case. If you can't be satisfied by a single politician's actions, perhaps you're just self-centered, or else ignorant, or in denial of the inherent imperfections of decision-making on such a large scale. There's not always a "right answer" to every situation. You're bound to piss off someone (if not everyone) with every single decision. And that's just the decisions people think they understand; there's also the reality that presidents are making decisions based on information we're not privileged to. And much of the criticism of those decisions is based on less-than-ideal sources, such as enemies of the administration (Republicans) or enemies of the United States (think of the critics of Obama's foreign policy who cite Iranian sources right here on Reddit, or who take the side of Taliban spokespeople), or journalists and intellectuals who, if you think really hard, you realize have never been the least bit happy with anyone—once again, a very revealing symptom of impossible expectations and a very high opinion of themselves. But again, that's not to say they're not sometimes right. It's just to say that there has to be a very solid separation between disagreeing with a decision and determining that the man himself is disagreeable or prone to bad decisions.

I like some of the things he's been a party to but really when I'm voting this year it'll either be someone to the left of Obama or, if it looks like Obama might actually lose, I'll vote for him just to keep the republican nominee out.

In short, Obama's a centrist and I'm a leftist but he's a hell of a politician and I do really think he's done well opposing what I see as the death throes of a languishing Republican party.

For the most part, no. Unfortunately with an incumbent running you options are very limited the way our voting system works. So he will get my vote because our country would be even more screwed with what looks like M.R.

I think if we didn't have such obstruction from the GOP people would definitely vote for him again. He has my vote what he has gotten done in just three years is nothing short of amazing. He has my support and vote.
Four more years.

I think he's done a good job considering the shit sandwich he was handed by his predecessor. He's playing the long game, and the Republicans don't seem to have a concept of this. The battles he's chosen to fight, like heathcare reform, are for things that are going to structurally change America for the better. I know he hasn't closed Gitmo, and he's stepped up drone strikes, but I think he knows that when he focuses on bigger, longer term projects like getting out of Iraq and figuring out a way out of Afghanistan, that Gitmo and drone strikes will be less necessary. TL;DR: Obama appears to be the only one in either party who's actually thinking 10,20 years down the road.

Though I'd like to see the federal government not exist, I am a little impressed with what Obama has been able to get done. I assumed he'd be able to get nothing done, but instead, there are these things: http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
So I'm a little curious about what he'd be able to do with a second term. The first term is just for cleaning up the last guy's mess, anyway. Maybe Obama will get something done -- that new budget has transportation projects and the "unlowering" of some rich people taxes and corporate taxes. Am I disappointed that he hasn't done more? Of course. Am I disappointed that he's totally in bed with banks like Goldman Sachs and other evil entities? Of course. But I guess I've got very little faith in all of it to begin with. Low standards. For shame.

No. I am horrified by his warmongering. When I think of Obama I think of being bombed by a predator drone. I think of little children and their mothers getting their legs and arms blown off. I think about US soldiers pissing on corpses. I think of torturers walking among us, completely free from responsibility for their criminal behavior.

I can't see a grown man who drops bombs on children in a positive light. I just can't. It's against my conscious.

I would rather see targeted drone killings rather than what Bush's policy was, full blown occupation. I really don't want to see either, but sometimes you need to pick the lesser of two evils. The Republican candidates all seem to want to invade Iran ASAP.

Obama is just now starting to do some great things. Funny he has to wait until reelection year for him to do them. Too many times have presidents done this in the past, wait till election time to pass favorable laws. I can no longer trust any man who does such things.

He sure promised a lot of change and it was a big flub. I can say in my personal situation, things have gotten worse all around since his presidency, especially concerning my job market. Whether he's responsible for the bad turn, I am not sure but I would like to see someone less attatched as a politician and more of a level headed candidate. I was furious over the bailouts and the pockets they filled. The only GOP candidate I can recall not supporting the bailout was Romney, but I don't know the other's positions. Overall, I think that perhaps Ron Paul or Mitt Romney would be better, although I think I'd rather see Congress swept out and replaced than a new President.

He promised a new approach to politics. One that didn't stick to partisan lines and focused on co-operation and compromise. He tried to bring about that change and Congress managed to show that they wouldn't play ball.

As for things getting worse, especially the jobs market, I suggest you look at the global picture. This is the same across the Western World. It is by no means unique to the US. That, in itself, gives the heavy suggestion that he is not responsible.

I am not really sure what you mean by "less attached as a politician" given that even members of Congress have claimed that Obama is detached from the political process and doesn't cozy up to other politicians to play political games. I am also not exactly sure where you think he has shown that he is not level headed during his administration.

The bailouts were an important part in the economic recovery. Without them the country would be in a dire situation. All those companies that were bailed out would now be gone and all their employees would be unemployed. Would you prefer that situation or the current situation where the economy is improving, the unemployment level is much lower than it would be without the bailouts and there are jobs being created on a monthly basis?

I think I'd rather see Congress swept out and replaced than a new President.

This is really the key thing. People ascribe all sorts of powers and perceptions to Presidents, when in reality it's the Legislative branch that creates and passes laws, and it's the Judiciary that interprets those laws: (When the SCOTUS isn't outright making shit up like in Citizen's United). The best President in the universe couldn't make a proper go of much of anything without solid support from the Legislative branch. And in this case, whomever followed George Bush and Dick Cheney was inheriting some very complex messes to clean up that would've been extremely difficult even with a willing Congress. It was a time when the nation needed to come together and carefully put forward some real change. Instead, the GOP decided that their short term political shenanigans were more important than the nation. And, so we have a mess with a couple fake sides that hate each other based on media spin and misconceptions.

What's not to like!! The man is awesome!!! Can you name another Peace Prize winner that's launched more cruise missiles than him!! He's going to free this shit out of those folks with his missiles and war!! He rocks!!!